Before I was creating my game, “Giant Steps,” I was looking at IF as something that was mostly about branching narratives and player agency. I was thinking about elaborate choice maps, and structures that change drastically where players really shape the direction of the story. The difference is, the impact went the other way—how can I create constrained agency to make specific emotional tasks land harder?
I think using the illusion of choice in lieu of narrative branching was definitely an interesting design decision that I made. It allowed players to come to conversations with different attitudes—they could be defensive, vulnerable, pragmatic, etc–but all paths lead to the same inevitable end, standing outside the jazz club with your heart pounding. This kind of mechanical constraint was key to establishing the emotional core of the game. Players focused on how Desmond feels about his situation, instead of trying to solve the problems, which makes deeper empathy than if they could simply just choose an “easier” path.
It was really cool to watch play testers. Christina breathing with the anxiety prompts, Lucas getting frustrated with the prof’s letter, and my grandmother (who didn’t even know that it was a “game”) becoming fully immersed in the character’s emotional state confirmed that something was working.
I learned that empathy in games is really about creating systems that make players feel the constraints of that situation, like one of our readings talked about. The medium’s power lies in the possibility to make these limitations feel visceral rather than abstract!
